Everybody's wrong.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2016, 01:04 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
You should summon an archangel then. How do you know we can't do that lift objects with our minds, I did judge my bias and the reason I believe so much in the bible is becuase of my spiritual experiences I had a lady tell me things only I knew about. You have to try it all you have is lack of research and your firing the gun already trust me ill pay you money if it doesn't work. Ask god for something something you can physically comprehend, you want god to talk to you through people ask. Mabe an alien will use telepathy to tell you gods real. Evolution there's no transmutation just the same animal adapting to its enviorment. And yes jesus said that I really and when they were writing the scriptures they were taking it from sources around 70 ad since jesus died in 00 ad. And god did say all the non esrth born crestures could nevrr come back to earth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 01:12 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
You know why has it been only believers figuring everything out. I will go with Einstein he sounds firm in believing in god no matter all the discoveries he made his quotes even sound spiritual and correlate with physics instead of people who want to believe in no god becuase of mabe past experiences they had or seeing a troubled world from which ourselves have caused bbecuase people are greedy and selfish snd evil quick to take blood money or a bribe for there own wealth and deny justice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 01:15 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
You are not trustworthy, Socialistview. We are under no obligation to try anything you suggest.

Your standard for evidence is utterly pathetic -- Totally indistinguishable from mental illness, an overactive imagination, or outright lying. If you cannot provide evidence that is up to our standards -- that is, physical evidence that we can have analyzed and re-analyzed in a science laboratory -- then you are wasting your time here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Astreja's post
13-11-2016, 01:19 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(13-11-2016 01:12 AM)socialistview Wrote:  I will go with Einstein he sounds firm in believing in god...

Didn't you read the rebuttal I posted earlier? Einstein stated in a letter in March 1954 that he did not believe in a personal god.

Quote:...instead of people who want to believe in no god becuase of mabe past experiences they had or seeing a troubled world from which ourselves have caused bbecuase people are greedy and selfish snd evil quick to take blood money or a bribe for there own wealth and deny justice.

Do you know why I don't believe in your god?

No. Fucking. Evidence.

It has nothing to do with past experiences or a "troubled world." There's just nothing that I find convincing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Astreja's post
13-11-2016, 01:35 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
Personal god only comes with christianiyy when jesus says were no longer slaves but coheirs to the kingdom. God says to job in the old testament that he is the god of all people. But can't one person have devine intervention if god so approved of the persons cry for help. The evidence will come in the thousand year reign of jesus christ fact is we have quite a few books saying there is a god or we go back to him the enlighten one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 01:38 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(13-11-2016 01:35 AM)socialistview Wrote:  Personal god only comes with christianiyy when jesus says were no longer slaves but coheirs to the kingdom. God says to job in the old testament that he is the god of all people. But can't one person have devine intervention if god so approved of the persons cry for help. The evidence will come in the thousand year reign of jesus christ fact is we have quite a few books saying there is a god or we go back to him the enlighten one.

There will not be a thousand-year reign of Jesus. If there ever was such a man, he died nearly 2000 years ago and remains in his grave to this day.

Your religious superstitions are not evidence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 02:00 AM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2016 02:03 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(12-11-2016 03:28 PM)socialistview Wrote:  No jesus said heavens here on earth. What about ghost they say there energy and they give off magnetic waves. Well I'm a science major so I've taken biology I know everything about it. We have never found a common link between any animal changing from one form to another ever and microevolution doesn't explain macro. I wish I remember my early classes I could tell you the flaws of evolution.

Please, I'd LOVE to hear about "the flaws of evolution".

However, I don't think you understand evolution at all.

NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE FIELD OF BIOLOGY claims that animals are "changing one form to another". That's simply not what biology says. That's not what evolution is.

Evolution takes place at the population level, and it can be traced by several means. Because my study focus was on genetics, I tend to look at things from a DNA perspective.

Surely your biology studies explained what "markers" were, in DNA? If not, the short version is that there are several elements in DNA that can be used to trace a lineage. We use them in court, for instance, to identify criminal suspects and to tell whether (as Maury Povich likes to say) "you ARE the father of this baby".

Well guess what? The same exact markers can be used to trace evolutionary lineages, to see which population groups split off from an ancestral common-group, taking markers from the common group with them to the divergent descendant groups. The only reason those markers would be there, just like in the paternity tests, is if both groups share ancestry-- the DNA markers were "handed down" through the generations.

Here is an image from a Christian pro-evolution site (BioLogos, created by the former head of the Human Genome Project and current head of the National Institute of Health, Dr. Francis Collins) that shows just one of these marker sequences, an inactive gene (inactive genes are not acted on by Natural Selection, and therefore are not altered by anything other than "point mutation" errors when copied, because they don't express into a phenotype that is subject to environmental or other pressures) called GULO.

[Image: screenshot-2015-11-20-143505.png]

You can see from the handed-down section that we are related to dogs distantly (we are all mammals, and inherited this gene from a mammalian ancestor that predates dogs, humans, and the other great apes), and due to that distance there has been time for those genes to point-mutate into a bit of random divergence. Yet we all inherit the same basic pattern of this deactivated gene. With the other great apes, though, the pattern is strikingly similar, as there hasn't been enough time since we were all in the same population for the inactive gene to acquire new bits... most tellingly of all, though, is the deletion (shown as a dash in the sequence) of one of the letters in the sequence, shared by all the great apes (including us) but not by the dogs, showing it happened after our ancestral line diverged from theirs.

There is no other rational way to explain this inherited DNA sequence except in terms of common ancestry. On the contrary, the explanation that we did inherit it from an ancestral group is simple and obvious.

Only the emotional reaction of humans who don't wish to acknowledge that they are mammals and evolved like everything else on earth keeps them from seeing how obvious this simple fact is.

But here's the cool part: we only acquired this ability to sequence DNA like that about 30 years ago, and only really got good at it about 20 years ago. We've known through other lines of evidence that we were cousins to the other great apes for nearly a century. This new method of looking into the DNA sequences could have totally destroyed evolutionary theory-- if our other assumptions had been wrong, there was no reason to expect signs that we inherited our DNA from the same ancestral pool as the chimps, for instance, and it would not have shown these sequences in both our modern gene pools-- but it didn't. It totally confirmed, with a new and independent line of questioning, what other types of scientist had already discovered.

To answer your original question: microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing. There's no point where one "becomes" the other. The only difference is that we only live long enough to see microevolution directly, and we have to infer macro (which is just the cumulative microevolutionary changes added up over many, many, many generations) from other methods besides our eyesight. But the evidence of macroevolution is overwhelming. And it's not even that hard to grasp.

So I'm sorry, I have to say that your refusal to look at the evidence and understand it does not constitute a failure on the part of science, except in your own head.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-11-2016, 02:04 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(13-11-2016 01:04 AM)socialistview Wrote:  You should summon an archangel then.

How about you get some reputable scientists together, set up a double-blind falsifiable experiment, and attempt to summon the archangel yourself under controlled laboratory conditions? I mean, if you really can do it, surely you can do so in a lab with people there to make sure your archangel is really there and not of figment of your overactive imagination, right?

But we both know you're not going to do that, because as soon as you look too closely at the 'magic' it stops working.

Because it's not magic dipshit.


(13-11-2016 01:04 AM)socialistview Wrote:  How do you know we can't do that lift objects with our minds, I did judge my bias and the reason I believe so much in the bible is becuase of my spiritual experiences I had a lady tell me things only I knew about.

You wouldn't know the definition of 'bias' if it fucked you up the ass bareback and without lubrication.

What do you know about cold-reading? How specific where the questions and the answers? How do you know that she wasn't getting lucky? How do you know that you just aren't connecting the dots for her (given your level of professed credulity, I doubt it would take much for you to feed right into even a mediocre cold reader, giving them all the information they need to play you like a fool)? Did you test that same person against a group of other people to see if she was more accurate than just guessing?

Your personal testimony is woefully inadequate, and that you continually fail to see why is nothing but a mark of your willful ignorance.


(13-11-2016 01:04 AM)socialistview Wrote:  You have to try it all you have is lack of research and your firing the gun already trust me ill pay you money if it doesn't work.

Dude, you cannot even be bothered to grammar properly. What makes you think we should take anything you say seriously?

And yes, I'm using 'grammar' as a verb ironically (not that I'd expect you to catch on).


(13-11-2016 01:04 AM)socialistview Wrote:  Ask god for something something you can physically comprehend, you want god to talk to you through people ask.

You need better than that.

Those who already believe in god who go asking for answers very often find them, and it's called confirmation bias. Those struggling with doubt who find their god silent? That's them breaking through their biases, no longer lying to themselves, recognizing their biases for what they are; desires and post-hoc rationalization.

Any god worthy of the definition should be able to demonstrate itself to skeptics, not just believes. A god silent god who never interacts with the world is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a nonexistent god. Those who aren't already drinking the Kool-Aid recognize that a nonexistent god is a much simpler, and thus far more statistically probable, than a silent god who does nothing ever.


(13-11-2016 01:04 AM)socialistview Wrote:  Mabe an alien will use telepathy to tell you gods real.

Unless that aliens has demonstrable evidence for the existence of the divine, why should I just take an extraterrestrial at it's word? Without evidence, the extraterrestrial has no better reason to believe in it. And if you're trying to argue that we should just take their word for it, simply because they are aliens?You can take your argument from authority and shove it right back up your ignorant ass. Aliens don't get a pass of having to demonstrate the validity of their claims.

Extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence. Being an alien does not earn you a special exemption.


(13-11-2016 01:04 AM)socialistview Wrote:  Evolution there's no transmutation just the same animal adapting to its enviorment.

Transmutation? Another creationist buzzword that belies your own woeful lack of education, and the fact that you're a lying piece of shit who claimed otherwise.


(13-11-2016 01:04 AM)socialistview Wrote:  And yes jesus said that I really and when they were writing the scriptures they were taking it from sources around 70 ad since jesus died in 00 ad.

No eyewitnesses. Being old doesn't make it authentic. The book claiming to be divinely inspired does not make it fact. You cannot point to the claims in the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible, you credulous twat. Self-corroboration is an oxymoron.

Even if a man named Jesus had lived and died, you want us to take seriously that over the course of almost a century or oral traditions being passed around by illiterate and ignorant barbarians, that they managed to perfectly transmit the message without any embellishment, omissions, or fabrications? Did you never play 'telephone' or 'Chinese whispers' as a child? Most simple messages can't get through more than 3 people before being mangled.

Boy howdy, are you stupid as fuck.


(13-11-2016 01:04 AM)socialistview Wrote:  And god did say all the non esrth born crestures could nevrr come back to earth.

Gods didn't say shit. People who fabricated the story wrote down what they wanted their gods to say.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-11-2016, 02:09 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
Its based on belief then your belief will be justified. They can't find anything from him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 02:10 AM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
Oh, yes, for the record, none of what I wrote about DNA, above, has anything to do with the animals "adapting to their environment" (which is Natural Selection, and why I specifically excluded any sort of DNA evidence that can be influenced by adaptation to the environment), so don't try to pretend that "they just adapt to the environment" is a defense against the DNA evidence.

I've also heard Creationists try to "explain" common gene sequences by saying that the Creator uses similar sequences to make similar animals. Okay, that's nice, but it doesn't explain why there are inactive heritable sequences that are identical or nearly-identical, shared in common between similar creatures, since those sequences don't "make" the animals.

In other words, the sections I'm talking about would only exist in common under two circumstances:

1) We really did inherit them from a common ancestral gene pool, or

2) God put them there to deliberately fool us all into thinking they're common ancestral markers, because he's an asshole.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: